My gripe with the Republicans that they don't seem to see is that there are too many candidates and all of them start to tear each other down to the Dimocrats enjoyment. They start to bring out skeletons from the closet and in a sense become the Dimocrats best weapon. Too many power hungry Republicans will spoil the soup.

Look at the Dimocrats the last election, no one was cutting down Great Leader and he breezed into the WH with nary a dissenting voice.

Republicans have to run smarter and they're not doing it. Stop with the power madness and pick the person that you think can win the WH instead of fighting each other every election time.

(09-18-2014 12:55 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Torch, would you agree that the basic problem is that republicans lack a message?

Their candidates aren't great communicators because the don't have anything to communicate. They can't do the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and shift every uncomfortable question to a soliloquy about something else, because they don't have the something else.

Republican candidates are not going to win miss congeniality contests with democrats because the media will see to it that they don't. They need to take winning issue positions and communicate them. Again, that's what Newt did in 1994. But that's a two step process. Step 2 is communicating the ideas. Step 1 is having them. And you can't do step 2 until after you do step 1.

And frankly, until republicans come up with that message I don't see them as much better than democrats. Different, and sufficiently different to cause gridlock, which is far better that either side getting its way right now.

Owl, you're arguing two entirely different issues here.

1) First you say the Republicans don't have a message.

2) then you say the "Media sees to it they don't". In other words, they have a message that the media won't let out?

I've made this argument before (and I just picked one minor option here).

Republican Message: We don't want tax payers to pay for your birth control in their health care. Pay for your own.

Democrats get out and say "Republicans don't want you to have birth control!".

Republican can shout til they're blue in the face... "that's not what my message was, I said...Pay for your own birth control"


Media; Democrats are saying that Republicans don't want you to have birth control.
Republican: That's not what I said .. i said....
Media; So why don't you want people to have birth control?
Republican: If you'd listen..
Media: I mean the Democrats say you don't want people to have free choice. How can you be so cruel?
Rep: We actually said..
Media: I'm sorry, we're out of time...

Nice

Neither group represents me much at all. I am conservative on social issues but center to ever-so-slighly left economically, by my impression.

I vote Republican though because the Democratic party of today wants to go about things in exclusively bad ways.

(09-18-2014 01:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  My gripe with the Republicans that they don't seem to see is that there are too many candidates and all of them start to tear each other down to the Dimocrats enjoyment. They start to bring out skeletons from the closet and in a sense become the Dimocrats best weapon. Too many power hungry Republicans will spoil the soup.

Look at the Dimocrats the last election, no one was cutting down Great Leader and he breezed into the WH with nary a dissenting voice.

Republicans have to run smarter and they're not doing it. Stop with the power madness and pick the person that you think can win the WH instead of fighting each other every election time.

Much easier to suppress potential opposition when you have the NSA.

(09-18-2014 01:00 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"

I've yet to see a case where exit polls reveal that the election would have turned out differently had there not been a third party candidate (but there certainly could be some out there). Often the third-party voters simply would have stayed home.

(09-18-2014 12:55 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Owl, you're arguing two entirely different issues here.
1) First you say the Republicans don't have a message.
2) then you say the "Media sees to it they don't". In other words, they have a message that the media won't let out?

Yes the media are generally unfriendly. But they don't get the message out on Fox either, and Fox is not unfriendly. I've pretty much quit watching Fox because I can't stand to watch the republicans' pathetic efforts to get the message out in a friendly setting.

Quote:Media; Democrats are saying that Republicans don't want you to have birth control.

Here's the problem. That question has a flawed premise. So you don't attempt to answer the question. You challenge the premise.

Answer: What republican said that, and when, and what exact words did he use?

It's like the old standard, do you still beat your wife? You can't answer it as a straightforward question without getting into exactly the trap you describe.

On the other hand, one could argue that Ralph Nader put off the rot for 8 years.

(09-18-2014 01:29 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:00 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"

I've yet to see a case where exit polls reveal that the election would have turned out differently had there not been a third party candidate (but there certainly could be some out there). Often the third-party voters simply would have stayed home.

Mississippi: The Libertarian-Republicans got behind Carey as a protest vote. And they despised Cochran. Yet those 4000 votes for Carey would have given McDaniel a 51% win. (McDaniel - 49.5, Cochran -40.0, Carey -1.5%)

The Libertarians (to my knowledge) did not put up a primary candidate, so they went out to protest vote with Carey (on record by some MS Libertarian leaders).

McDaniel could have easily won the primary election at 51%, but because the Libertarians went out of their way to have a protest vote, the state got stuck with Cochran after the run-off.

(09-18-2014 12:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  People complain about the candidates that are put forward each time but they have nobody to blame but themselves and nothing to blame but the apathy of their neighbors.

Do you know how much it costs to run even for a minor position?

It costs a good chunk of your own money, and then you have to kowtow to the party power brokers to get their support.

Instead of fighting those social issues that no one can agree on like abortion, gay weddings, birth control, welfare, etc. Just say you favor giving those issues to the states and let them vote for or against them. It takes the problem out of your hands and the federal government. After all, it's the state occupants that know what's best for them, not the fed. gov.

You tell them that your job is keeping the nation safe, economically healthy, and other things that only the fed. gov. can act on. If a president wants health care let the states take care of it and not let it be a federal boondoggle. Look at what happened in Texas with Perry, he called up the national guard and even though he got criticized by the Left no one cared. That would make it a states rights issue, protecting the border with the CBP. The one who came out looking bad in this was obama because it showed that the wasn't so into protecting our border but Perry.

(09-18-2014 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Answer: What republican said that, and when, and what exact words did he use?

It's like the old standard, do you still beat your wife? You can't answer it as a straightforward question without getting into exactly the trap you describe.

Owl, there are some who are getting out there.. Cruz, Rand Paul, Rubio... but when the media needs a "republican" to speak to , who do they turn to?

McCain, Graham, McConnell, or the worst of the lot Karl Rove.. the people who don't speak up for the average voter anymore, but the media pushes it off as "this is your rank and file Republican".

And that's the other problem; the average uninformed voter (again, most of the gang on here would not fall in this category) just see McCain speak up and the media calls him a "rank and file republican" and that's the end-all-be-all in their minds.

Go find your average American and ask him questions about any 10 positions they take (not what freebies they'd vote for, etc.), and I'd GUESS (won't say for sure) that more than 50% of their opinions would fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, but they will still vote for the progressive candidate, because since the media says "insert Conservative candidate' here is a villain, I can't vote for what I believe in!

(09-18-2014 01:40 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:29 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:00 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"

I've yet to see a case where exit polls reveal that the election would have turned out differently had there not been a third party candidate (but there certainly could be some out there). Often the third-party voters simply would have stayed home.

Mississippi: The Libertarian-Republicans got behind Carey as a protest vote. And they despised Cochran. Yet those 4000 votes for Carey would have given McDaniel a 51% win. (McDaniel - 49.5, Cochran -40.0, Carey -1.5%)
The Libertarians (to my knowledge) did not put up a primary candidate, so they went out to protest vote with Carey (on record by some MS Libertarian leaders).
McDaniel could have easily won the primary election at 51%, but because the Libertarians went out of their way to have a protest vote, the state got stuck with Cochran after the run-off.

This is a primary not involving a third party.

(09-18-2014 01:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:40 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:29 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:00 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"

I've yet to see a case where exit polls reveal that the election would have turned out differently had there not been a third party candidate (but there certainly could be some out there). Often the third-party voters simply would have stayed home.

Mississippi: The Libertarian-Republicans got behind Carey as a protest vote. And they despised Cochran. Yet those 4000 votes for Carey would have given McDaniel a 51% win. (McDaniel - 49.5, Cochran -40.0, Carey -1.5%)
The Libertarians (to my knowledge) did not put up a primary candidate, so they went out to protest vote with Carey (on record by some MS Libertarian leaders).
McDaniel could have easily won the primary election at 51%, but because the Libertarians went out of their way to have a protest vote, the state got stuck with Cochran after the run-off.

This is a primary not involving a third party.

It involved third party, in this case, Jh.. because the Libertarians did not have a primary, so they registered as Republicans (again, as admitted to on the record by some of the MS Libertarian party leadership) and voted in the primary and then (reportedly) did not vote in the run-off.

(09-18-2014 01:46 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Instead of fighting those social issues that no one can agree on like abortion, gay weddings, birth control, welfare, etc. Just say you favor giving those issues to the states and let them vote for or against them. It takes the problem out of your hands and the federal government. After all, it's the state occupants that know what's best for them, not the fed. gov.

You tell them that your job is keeping the nation safe, economically healthy, and other things that only the fed. gov. can act on. If a president wants health care let the states take care of it and not let it be a federal boondoggle. Look at what happened in Texas with Perry, he called up the national guard and even though he got criticized by the Left no one cared. That would make it a states rights issue, protecting the border with the CBP. The one who came out looking bad in this was obama because it showed that the wasn't so into protecting our border but Perry.

But here's the thing. The Dems use social issues to whip up their base and the uninformed voter. Most people agree with the majority GOP position on abortion, no one is voting on gay issues as their sole issue, the GOP doesn't care about birth control...just don't want to pay for it, and welfare isn't a social issue...it has cost us trillions since the Johnson administration.

The problem the GOP has is that creating and promoting a consensus opinion on these issues. What that means is that liberal news media simply picks and chooses the points they want to highlight. For example, in 2012, only Rick Santorum was speaking about access to birth control and women in the home...but, that crap just fed into the war against women narrative and pulled the whole party off message to deal with it, even though only a small portion of the party agreed with him.

(09-18-2014 01:53 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:46 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Instead of fighting those social issues that no one can agree on like abortion, gay weddings, birth control, welfare, etc. Just say you favor giving those issues to the states and let them vote for or against them. It takes the problem out of your hands and the federal government. After all, it's the state occupants that know what's best for them, not the fed. gov.

You tell them that your job is keeping the nation safe, economically healthy, and other things that only the fed. gov. can act on. If a president wants health care let the states take care of it and not let it be a federal boondoggle. Look at what happened in Texas with Perry, he called up the national guard and even though he got criticized by the Left no one cared. That would make it a states rights issue, protecting the border with the CBP. The one who came out looking bad in this was obama because it showed that the wasn't so into protecting our border but Perry.

But here's the thing. The Dems use social issues to whip up their base and the uninformed voter. Most people agree with the majority GOP position on abortion, no one is voting on gay issues as their sole issue, the GOP doesn't care about birth control...just don't want to pay for it, and welfare isn't a social issue...it has cost us trillions since the Johnson administration.

The problem the GOP has is that creating and promoting a consensus opinion on these issues. What that means is that liberal news media simply picks and chooses the points they want to highlight. For example, in 2012, only Rick Santorum was speaking about access to birth control and women in the home...but, that crap just fed into the war against women narrative and pulled the whole party off message to deal with it, even though only a small portion of the party agreed with him.

I agree with you.

I turn around and look at the reality on the ground though and can come to no other conclusion but that a large portion of the American public has lost its initiative and moral compass.

The electorate subsists on nothing but emotion these days, not reason. It's easy to whip up fools about abortion, gay marriage, race issues even if there is no substance to some of it. The politicians cynically use these issues to divert attention and the electorate responds. So, that's a social problem, not a political one.

The US has a serious social and cultural problem. We just aren't interested in anything but our immediate gratification, wether it be where the next welfare check is coming from, or how we can create a system to rob folks.

(09-18-2014 01:51 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:40 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:29 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:00 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It may not have happened in your jurisdiction, but there have been plenty of cases in the past few years where the 3rd party vote tally has made the difference, and honestly I'd wager if those 3rd party candidates weren't there, and the voter actually looked at the candidates other than the "R", "D", or "L" next to their name, they'd find themselves in agreement more often than not (not always) with the "R" candidate over the "D"

I've yet to see a case where exit polls reveal that the election would have turned out differently had there not been a third party candidate (but there certainly could be some out there). Often the third-party voters simply would have stayed home.

Mississippi: The Libertarian-Republicans got behind Carey as a protest vote. And they despised Cochran. Yet those 4000 votes for Carey would have given McDaniel a 51% win. (McDaniel - 49.5, Cochran -40.0, Carey -1.5%)
The Libertarians (to my knowledge) did not put up a primary candidate, so they went out to protest vote with Carey (on record by some MS Libertarian leaders).
McDaniel could have easily won the primary election at 51%, but because the Libertarians went out of their way to have a protest vote, the state got stuck with Cochran after the run-off.

This is a primary not involving a third party.

It involved third party, in this case, Jh.. because the Libertarians did not have a primary, so they registered as Republicans (again, as admitted to on the record by some of the MS Libertarian party leadership) and voted in the primary and then (reportedly) did not vote in the run-off.

We were talking about third-party candidates. There were also reports of Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primary, which is another reason why primary results are more difficult to evaluate.

Moreover, if the libertarian-Republicans weren't willing to vote for McDaniel in the runoff, why do you think they would have voted for him in the original primary? This seems to be another example of third-party voters simply sitting out elections when they don't have a meaningful choice.

(09-18-2014 01:53 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:46 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Instead of fighting those social issues that no one can agree on like abortion, gay weddings, birth control, welfare, etc. Just say you favor giving those issues to the states and let them vote for or against them. It takes the problem out of your hands and the federal government. After all, it's the state occupants that know what's best for them, not the fed. gov.

You tell them that your job is keeping the nation safe, economically healthy, and other things that only the fed. gov. can act on. If a president wants health care let the states take care of it and not let it be a federal boondoggle. Look at what happened in Texas with Perry, he called up the national guard and even though he got criticized by the Left no one cared. That would make it a states rights issue, protecting the border with the CBP. The one who came out looking bad in this was obama because it showed that the wasn't so into protecting our border but Perry.

But here's the thing. The Dems use social issues to whip up their base and the uninformed voter. Most people agree with the majority GOP position on abortion, no one is voting on gay issues as their sole issue, the GOP doesn't care about birth control...just don't want to pay for it, and welfare isn't a social issue...it has cost us trillions since the Johnson administration.

The problem the GOP has is that creating and promoting a consensus opinion on these issues. What that means is that liberal news media simply picks and chooses the points they want to highlight. For example, in 2012, only Rick Santorum was speaking about access to birth control and women in the home...but, that crap just fed into the war against women narrative and pulled the whole party off message to deal with it, even though only a small portion of the party agreed with him.

the red ==> you have got to be kidding me. it's at best a 52-48 split

the green ==> gimmie a break. a lot of people find the GOPs stance on this to be repulsive. just because YOU don't make this connection doesn't mean a large number of other people do.

the blue ==> yeah well it's too bad they can't make this point without coming off as being anti-women

the purple ==> again just because you don't perceive it that way doesn't mean a large number of voters do.

the underlined part ==> now if you want to make the claim that the anti women mentality within the GOP is just one candidate and not reflective of the whole party, then you are just proving how out of touch with reality you are. go look at the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act where all but three democrats voted for it and all but three republicans voted against it. I think it's pretty clear cut where the party as a whole stands on women's issues. this was a self inflicted wound, not one created by the media.

Abortion statistics are always skewed by how the question is answered.

I am against abortion being used as birth control in the moral sense but I have no problem with it being legal for any situation up to 6-8 weeks.

I think most Americans fall somewhere around what I just said. It shouldn't be illegal in every case but it isn't a good thing and they don't like it.

So how do I answer the question of do you support abortion, yes or no?

(09-18-2014 02:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Abortion statistics are always skewed by how the question is answered.

I am against abortion being used as birth control in the moral sense but I have no problem with it being legal for any situation up to 6-8 weeks.

I think most Americans fall somewhere around what I just said. It shouldn't be illegal in every case but it isn't a good thing and they don't like it.

So how do I answer the question of do you support abortion, yes or no?

great point. The issue of pro/against is about 50-50

the issue of being legal in all or illegal in all cases is also roughly equal

I don't think any side can truly claim to have a sizable advantage in public opinion.

John, just to ask.. you're defending the Lily Ledbetter act? The act that basically said, no matter what your employees qualifications were, you were to be forced to pay them the same just because they had the same job title?

I can't believe ANYONE still believes that proposal was a good idea.

As for some of your other points.

A) Again, even if it's 52-48 or 51-49 split, it still would say that people opposed to abortion are still in the majority correct? (I thought the latest numbers said 52-48, but i'd have to go look it up)

B) Anyone who votes on a candidate STRICTLY because of gay marriage beliefs (pro or anti), should honestly, not be voting in a national election. That may sound cruel, but this country does not revolve around who can /can't get married. Go make a strong push toward your state candidates and get them to work on the state level.

C) Here you actually proved my point, John. Outside of STRICT Catholics, I can't think of any Republican candidate who is opposed to birth control, but your response says "See anti-women!".. Again, convince me without general DNC talking points that says Republican candidates are anti-women?

It's just like the "Republicans want dirty air and water!" They do? They drink and breathe the same air/water democrats do...unless we have those built in filters in our lungs that I wasn't given.. Damn you VRWC!! Where's my cybernetic filters!!!

D) Welfare is NOT a social issue. It's a fiscal issue. Does it have parts of it the bleed into the social issues? Yes, but primarily the welfare/safety net is a fiscal issue in terms of what can the govt pay for.